Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #140 on: April 05, 2015, 03:59:59 AM »
The point is that you suggested we might do something that would be unfathamable with today's technology on a universal scale, like, say, searching the universe for life.

The difference is that my suggestion was made tongue in cheek and Dave's was not.

That excuses you from everything.

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1145
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #141 on: April 05, 2015, 08:32:26 PM »
Does anyone? Anyone? Have proof that these other planets are more than specks of light in the sky? If the specks of light are not actually other worlds, it seems pointless to argue they hold life forms on them.
God is real.

Ghost of V

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #142 on: April 05, 2015, 08:47:59 PM »
This is a purely hypothetical discussion.

*

Online Particle Person

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2866
  • born 2 b b&
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #143 on: April 05, 2015, 08:50:35 PM »
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Your mom is when your mom and you arent your mom.

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1145
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #144 on: April 05, 2015, 10:34:39 PM »
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.
God is real.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5637
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #145 on: April 06, 2015, 12:36:36 AM »
You can resolve those specks of light into circles with discernible features with equipment cheaper than $100.
Yes, I have done this before. It does not prove what size the lights are. It only proves the planets are larger lights than stars.

Yeah and you use parallax or redshift to tell how far away they are.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #146 on: April 06, 2015, 07:23:15 AM »
these "creationists" are just controlled opposition because they adhere to all the really important and major memes of TPTB/NWO......jews are nice people, the Holocaust happened, the nazis were bad, Hitler was bad, "racism" is bad, the world is a sphere, there are planets, galaxies &c, the Bible codes are false, the world and the Universe are only 6000yrs old (totally ridiculous......they can't even explain when Lucifer fell!), Einstein was a genius (he was a total fraud), the Roswell Incident was a weather balloon  ;D, vaccinations are good for you (in fact: they are jew population control as per The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion), "psychiatry" (a bogus jew 'invention') is a legitimate science and Nikola Tesla and his amazing discoveries are ignored.....
« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 09:31:48 AM by mister bickles »
nisi Dominus frustra

*

Offline The Ellimist

  • *
  • Posts: 31
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #147 on: April 07, 2015, 01:34:41 AM »
My comment sparked meaningful debate!





Give me a cookie.

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #148 on: April 12, 2015, 10:41:51 PM »
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #149 on: April 14, 2015, 03:35:07 AM »
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.


maybe....
i don't think that Nye would'v done as good if he had to "take on" some of the Intelligent Design heavy-weights like, for instance, Steven Meyer or Michael Behe.....
in that case, Nye would'v ended up looking like a fool.....and...a prize-winning one @ that  :(

(any-way.....the "debate format" was too short....you'd need some-thing like 1½-hr each for the main presentation; ½-hr each for rebuttals and one hour for questions from the 'audience'......'course....that means a five-hour format and with people's attention spans so small these days...... :(  )



nisi Dominus frustra

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #150 on: April 17, 2015, 08:46:21 AM »
Saw this debate live.
It was fun to watch.
Ken Ham ended up looking like a fool.


maybe....
i don't think that Nye would'v done as good if he had to "take on" some of the Intelligent Design heavy-weights like, for instance, Steven Meyer or Michael Behe.....
in that case, Nye would'v ended up looking like a fool.....and...a prize-winning one @ that  :(

(any-way.....the "debate format" was too short....you'd need some-thing like 1½-hr each for the main presentation; ½-hr each for rebuttals and one hour for questions from the 'audience'......'course....that means a five-hour format and with people's attention spans so small these days...... :(  )





I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #151 on: April 20, 2015, 05:44:32 AM »
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.

i think that you either misunderstood what the IDrs were saying in the video or you weren't concentrating;

maybe you should re-watch it;

if so: you will find that the pro-evolution panel had no answer(s) @ all to the IDrs claims of ID in the cell;

they couldn't explain (via naturalistic means) nor did they even bother to address:
i/the chemical coding systems (DNA/RNA and other, recently discovered, double and triple embedded 'languages');
ii/the irreducible complexity of a multitude of biochemical systems;
iii/the (eerie) machine-like quality of the cell and its attendant systems....in particular: protein function
(bacterial flagellum, cilia &c)

that's three strikes and yr O_U_T ! 

Darwinism is dead!

it is totally paralysed in the face of the gob-smacking, intricate design now being discovered @ the molecular biological level;

as for Nye being able to 'take on' Behe......come on!  ::)

Nye is an intellectual light-weight whereas Behe is a fully tenured Professor of biochemistry who has published in peer-reviewed journals!

Behe would wipe the floor with him!


this YouTube might "get the message" across a bit more clearly....


enjoy!  :-B
nisi Dominus frustra

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5637
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #152 on: April 20, 2015, 01:14:44 PM »
The irreducible complexity argument is just a god of the gaps argument. 
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Misero

  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, and more Evidence.
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #153 on: April 20, 2015, 08:44:37 PM »
ET life means extraterrestrial, outside of earth, not extrasolar, outside of the solar system.
Nobody should ever follow my standard.  I am the worst moderator ever.
Yes, I'll still keep that in mind on this forum too.

Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #154 on: April 21, 2015, 02:03:24 AM »
The guy got his ass handed to him by Bill...

*

Offline Misero

  • *
  • Posts: 94
  • Evidence, Evidence, Evidence, and more Evidence.
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #155 on: April 21, 2015, 07:16:32 PM »
Can we all say that we root for Bill in all his debates?
Nobody should ever follow my standard.  I am the worst moderator ever.
Yes, I'll still keep that in mind on this forum too.

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #156 on: April 22, 2015, 10:51:00 PM »
I highly doubt that intelligent design 'heavyweights' would make him look like the fool. They would simply draw better arguments out of him. The debate against Ham was ridiculous, Nye ran out of things to argue about because it is hard to argue against random nonsense. It wasn't a real debate... and it really could never be when one side has scientific evidence and the other blind belief. Ham said it himself when he said that no matter what, he could not be persuaded against his views...
Nye said that evidence would change his mind. That's a completely scientific response. Science doesn't care about beliefs, it cares about evidence. A scientist is willing to accept anything as possible, but the more outlandish the claim, the more evidence that will be required to make it believable. Ham was unable to provide any evidence... that leaves his 'idea' with nothing to stand on except brain-washed beliefs....

That video is pretty laughable...
I am actually sorry that I watched it. It provided nothing really... If this is the best that intelligent design 'heavyweights' can do, it's a wonder that anyone takes creationism seriously at all.

i think that you either misunderstood what the IDrs were saying in the video or you weren't concentrating;

maybe you should re-watch it;

if so: you will find that the pro-evolution panel had no answer(s) @ all to the IDrs claims of ID in the cell;

they couldn't explain (via naturalistic means) nor did they even bother to address:
i/the chemical coding systems (DNA/RNA and other, recently discovered, double and triple embedded 'languages');
ii/the irreducible complexity of a multitude of biochemical systems;
iii/the (eerie) machine-like quality of the cell and its attendant systems....in particular: protein function
(bacterial flagellum, cilia &c)

that's three strikes and yr O_U_T ! 

Darwinism is dead!

it is totally paralysed in the face of the gob-smacking, intricate design now being discovered @ the molecular biological level;

as for Nye being able to 'take on' Behe......come on!  ::)

Nye is an intellectual light-weight whereas Behe is a fully tenured Professor of biochemistry who has published in peer-reviewed journals!

Behe would wipe the floor with him!


this YouTube might "get the message" across a bit more clearly....


enjoy!  :-B

You are joking right?
Your 3 points that you brought up neither confirm nor deny intelligent design.
Those heavy-weight morons (and I call them morons because in spite of their intelligence hold onto a belief without evidence), fail to show evidence of intelligent design. They are working on the same argument that hundreds of people have used over the past hundred years: "how could *such and such complex thing* occur naturally?". The fact that most of the ludicrous questions have already been answered only means they have to bring up another. The trouble with this line of defense is that finding a question that someone doesn't have an answer to, in no way proves one side or the other. It merely makes them feel like they are ahead in the debate, when in reality, it doesn't go anywhere.
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic.

No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.

*

Offline mister bickles

  • *
  • Posts: 202
  • while there's life, there's hope!
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #157 on: April 23, 2015, 06:57:31 AM »

You are joking right?
Your 3 points that you brought up neither confirm nor deny intelligent design.

uh....really?
perhaps you could explain how information and complex nano-type machinery could arise w/out the intervention of an intelligent agent......in this case.....a super-Intelligent Agent!  ???


Quote
"how could *such and such complex thing* occur naturally?"

exactly!
and the fact that complex, self-reproducing molecular machinery and information-driven and controlled recursive sub-sytems could not have originated naturally (since no known laws of Physics could produce such systems), ipso facto, defaults to the only viable explanation.....(super)-Intelligent Design  :o


Quote
The fact that most of the ludicrous questions have already been answered only means they have to bring up another

not really!
none of Behe's original assertions (contained in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box") have been answered;
in fact: they haven't even been satisfactorily addressed;
he 'touches' on this in the Blogging Heads 'interview' and goes into it in more depth in his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution"


Quote
The trouble with this line of defense is that finding a question that someone doesn't have an answer to, in no way proves one side or the other

there is an "answer" and a very good one....its called Intelligent Design!


Quote
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it!



Quote
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 07:41:28 AM by mister bickles »
nisi Dominus frustra

Offline AMann

  • *
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #158 on: April 23, 2015, 07:17:55 PM »







Quote
That is the difference between science and fanaticism. Scientists will admit when they don't know something. That's why there is still research going on - if we knew everything, what would we need to research for? Fanatics on the other hand already have an idea and will use gaps in knowledge to fit their fanatic ideas into. In reality, their arguments show a severe lack in logic

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it!



Quote
No such thing as Darwinism.
And Evolution is far from dead - it is actually a scientific fact.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)

[/quote]

uh....really?
perhaps you could explain how information and complex nano-type machinery could arise w/out the intervention of an intelligent agent......in this case.....a super-Intelligent Agent!  ???


You are still inaccurately asserting that the inability to explain something is the automatic proof of something else.
Complex systems are certainly possible in evolution, especially when one understands how things like protein facilitators and enzymes work.
You still have nothing to directly point to a designer.

exactly!
and the fact that complex, self-reproducing molecular machinery and information-driven and controlled recursive sub-sytems could not have originated naturally (since no known laws of Physics could produce such systems), ipso facto, defaults to the only viable explanation.....(super)-Intelligent Design  :o


You are speculating that it could not originate naturally. You have no evidence that it cannot.

not really!
none of Behe's original assertions (contained in his first book, "Darwin's Black Box") have been answered;
in fact: they haven't even been satisfactorily addressed;
he 'touches' on this in the Blogging Heads 'interview' and goes into it in more depth in his most recent book "The Edge of Evolution"


And how do you address assertions that are based entirely on questions about what is not yet known and yet still has nothing to do with the issue they are trying to project as true? Science is still looking for the answers. Finding gaps in knowledge and superimposing super-individuals in as an explanation and claiming it as fact is the same thing that religions do (look at Zeus in Greek mythology for the explanation for lightning). There is no way as of yet to prove an intelligent designer as there is no evidence, so any attempt to do so is the work of fanaticism and not science.

there is an "answer" and a very good one....its called Intelligent Design!

You are stuck with the idea you have been brain-washed with.
Intelligent design is a possible explanation, but not the only one. You and anyone else have yet to provide any proof that intelligent design is the answer.
And even if intelligent design was someday shown to be the answer, there would always be the question: where did the intelligent designer come from.
Science will never be finished asking questions - that's the fun of it. We never assume to know anything for sure. We look for evidence.

well....sorry!....but the real fanatics are the "scientists falsely so called" because they automatically pre-exclude any non-naturalistic explanation....its automatically ruled "out of court";
i can, in fact, cite you just such a quote from John Maddox, the (former) editor of Nature;
their "fanatical" religion is called methodological, atheistic naturalism;
here's a good little picture of it!

Now I know you are a joke lol
You say scientists are labeled falsely because they follow the evidence they have? There is no evidence for any non-naturalistic explanation. Scientists follow evidence. If you do not have evidence, you do not have anything.

get with it!
Darwinism died a long time ago.....well....neo-Darwinism....or the neo-Darwinian theory.....the current paradigm!
the people spruiking this nonsense are going to be made to look increasingly stoopid!
the results of the ENCODE project have pretty much nailed them to the wall!
wake up to the 21st century......Intelligent Design is the paradigm!  8)

[/quote]

Again - no such thing as Darwinism in science.
I believe the word you are referring to is Evolution.
I have yet to see anyone trying disprove evolution look anything but stupid... or at the very least lacking in the ability to argue logically.

*

Online Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7042
    • View Profile
Re: Bill Nye debates Ken Ham on Creationism
« Reply #159 on: April 23, 2015, 07:37:42 PM »
Feeding a bad troll is not a victimless crime. Please stop.